Comment by voidhorse | Hacker News Reader

Comment by voidhorse | Hacker News Reader

To interpret Plato as a practitioner of Zen...the other Buddhist sects must be far different from Mahayana Buddhism--anyone who is familiar with Mahayana, especially the line stemming from Bodhidharma, and Plato's thought will know that to compare Plato's philosophy with Zen is patently ridiculous--the one rejects the existence of objects, the other wants there to be a whole heaven of conceptual objects--to think there is any similarity in the 'one' of zen and the 'one' of Plato, or the Neo-platonists for that matter, just shows to me that you've engaged in very shallow reading. Still perhaps there's something in it, based on how absurdly incorrect it seems--plus I only know a bit about Mahayana--no other Zen traditions, so perhaps there are some that are more akin.

In general I am suspicious of all books and articles that insist on modelling their titles off of buzzy cliche's:

"Zen and the art of XYZ" "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and XYZ" etc.

It just does not leave a tantalizing impression and stinks of shallow laziness to me.

I suppose this isn't totally fair to this book, considering it came out in 1974--but still!

That's a shame because skimming through this article, this books sounds as though it may prove to be somewhat interesting.

Please, you've worked so hard on your book--for the love of god, bless it with the title it deserves!

I think this is some practical advice for writer's: consider the glittering titles of Nietzsche's works before you settle on a name for your book--is that really what you want to call it?--is that really its name?

Sheesh, I may have to read this just because of how vehemently I disagree with that Plato/Zen analogy--I need to see where the hell this guy could possibly be coming from other than bad, clumsy reading, and poor conceptual housekeeping--if not from here he's picked up on a grand connection I've missed, and has thus created something worthwhile.

(If only the name designated so!)

The book is a monument of literature. Its title is the genesis of your buzzy cliché, not a lazy user of it. It deserves none of that opprobrium from someone who hasn't read it.

Always a bit disappointed to see my message shared more effectively in fewer words.

I assume as much--thus my afterthought about 1974.

The more significant point, about the outright absurdity of interpreting Plato as a practitioner of zen--stands.

It also stands, as I said, that this absurdity makes me want to read the book--it indicates someone is following quite a different set of rules--playing quite a different game.

You're are most definitely correct on calling me out--my comment was a tad irrelevant and unfair--juvenile. Occasionally one regrets a comment after positing--one gets the sense a gut response--a passion, was at root--that comment was my gut response to the Plato/zen idea--which is a nullity to me!

At the same time I do think it's a bit extreme to call my comment an opprobrium.

It doesn't help that, as someone above pointed out, this reviewer clearly wrote the review for those already somewhat familiar with the book. Having not read it, I don't think I could give you a one sentence synopsis about the subject matter with full confidence based on that review alone. I only have that first quote from the text--which out of context, at least, seems absurd in its relating zen and western thought (though it has a fine understanding of Aristotle)

Fair, and 'opprobrium' was a bit heavy.

I don't think there is a one sentence description. It's a very, very rich book - a rare thing, with no easy summary possible. I have no philosophy training so I'm not qualified to discuss whether those aspects of the book make sense or not, but there is an involved (and unresolved) discussion on the nature of 'quality' which is alone worth reading it for. There is a narrative. There are questions of mental illness, of family, of interpersonal relationships, all of which are a pleasure to immerse oneself in. It is a difficult book, but ultimately I felt myself the better for expending the effort. I think you might find the experience worthwhile too, given what your comments suggest about the perspective you'd read it through. You might not agree with it but you may enjoy the argument.

A good weekend to you!

"Its title is the genesis of your buzzy cliche"

It's not, actually. The progenitor of such titles is "Zen in the Art of Archery",[1] which was published 26 years earlier.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery

For those unfamiliar with the works, it's a good reference. In 'Zen in the Art of Archery' Eugen Herrigel uses archery as a metaphor to initially learn, and then to teach Zen to a western audience because teaching it directly, intellectually, is indicated to be impossible.

Pirsig's novel references this because large sections of the book deal with the inability to express something on a purely 'classical' or intellectual level, the inability to define certain concepts, and the attempt to somehow bridge that intellectual leap of faith and explain things that cannot be explained directly.

So he tries to convey his ideas on a more intuitive level, using all the arts of redeemed sophistry through the means of creative writing, a story about travelling on a motorcycle with his son and discussing motorcycle maintenance.

It's interesting to me to what extent the huge amount of "Zen and the Art of.." books that exist these days are references to Pirsig's novel or to Herrigel's. My feeling is generally a lot of them are unaware of the existence of Herrigel's novel and the choice of phrasing does suggest Pirsig's. However, even right at the start Herrigel's title was a template for other books: only a few years after its publication his wife Gustie also published a book called 'Zen in the Art of Flower Arrangement' with a similar treatment of Zen through the medium of Ikebana or flower arrangement.

You should not confuse the western philosophical zen writing tradition with Zen Buddhism.

In the western Zen Buddhist circles Robert M. Pirsig and Alan Watts are seen as both menace and blessing.

On the other hand these two gentlemen created interest for people to learn zen. On the other hand they created new western philosophy that adopted the name of zen and shares some ideas in surface level. Watts was very educated in Zen Buddhist literature and his writings are even more confusing.

Zen tradition is known as the meditation tradition in Buddhism. The word itself (etymology: zen -> ch'an -> dhyana) means meditation. Zen training trough the history is sitting in meditation. Very little is taught as a philosophy. People who go to the gym and are able to put time aside to train can pick up zazen easier than people who read zen books for 10 years.

Thank you, that clears things up.

I am most familiar with the platform sutra and some poetry of the monks--and well--it's nigh impossible for me to relate that to anything Plato ever conceived.

But of course that may just mean I haven't read enough Plato or practiced enough zen.

I think you are taking the Plato as a Buddhist quote too literally. It is meant as a literary metaphor to draw a distinction between Pirsig and Phaedrus, who are both characters in this particular novel.

You're seriously overthinking the name here. I generally feel the same about names but make exceptions for the original use that started the trend and creates the fashion such as How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Atomic Bomb or Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Also a reference to motorcycle maintenance is central to the start of this book, sadly I've only read the first third, so the name feels perfectly natural especially so taking into account the time it was published in with the time's interest in Zen.

I cannot speak to your other objections but I suspect you would like the book based on your response and if you give it two chapters I think you'll know.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OlderThanTheyThin...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com